As has been noted in several diaries here at dKos (yes, I still read as much as I can here, despite my lack of posting), the circumstances around the birth of Sarah Palin's fifth child are particularly suspicious. This link from Reddit gives the basic rundown on the rumors. Given the photographic showing what seems to be a very not-pregnant Palin earlier this year, combined with the somewhat dangerous-sounding report that she flew back to Alaska after her water broke, it would seem that there is some strong circumstantial evidence that she was covering for her now-17 year old daughter Bristol - who was reportedly out of school a long time due to mononucleosis.
So I decided to email Gregg Erickson, the reporter from the Anchorage Daily News who hosted a chat at the Washington Post's website earlier today. I asked about the rumors, including the circumstantial evidence that seems to support a cover-up.
Here's his response:
The press did a pretty good job of following up on the substitute child rumor. It proved baseless.
I'm no obstetrics expert, but flying home - while having contractions - seems dangerous to me as well. Perhaps a real expert could opine on that. You have to say this about her: she's tough.
Given that Erickson was blunt (if not a bit unimpressed) in his evaluation of Palin during the chat this afternoon, I think it's fair to say that if he says the rumors were investigated and debunked, that should be that. Let's focus on the other issues that make Sarah Palin a bad choice for VP hereon out - not a story that makes for a good rumor but has no basis in reality.